Yeah. And Bob just has some blockchain token that signifies nothing, except maybe to enthusiasts of this NFT technology. There's no actual ownership of the file there, not even "technically."

I suppose you could create a Torrens title system that uses NFTs, but all the force will come from the law not the NFT technology.

Literally, this changes nothing. A copy is the same artwork as any other.

Legally, having ownership (or partial) of artwork can be enforceable.

Artistically speaking, this seems to mean a lot to a lot of people's sense of value. I guess that's important. It's less important to me but I definitely see where they're coming from.

After reading the responses here, I think I'm just gonna have to file this under "I don't care, but if it makes people happy then more power to them." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks in the US, AFAIK, are basically just the right to sue someone if they infringe on your ownership rights. Even deeds and property ownership require some legal or physical enforcement.

Anyways, I'm curious about this space and hoping I start to hear more conversations in crypto talking about which systems of human governance we want to work hand-in-hand with these blockchains.

I think of it like having your name in the credits of a movie. Nobody should care about that, but they do.

Art by definition has done the opposite. Unique pieces that are HARD to copy (IIRC art only gains value once the artist is dead) and thus can gain value.

This feels to me like a weird version of DRM which has no real world use case.